Hiroshima: 57 years

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Sure, Sure. I was just trying to hit back   ! Of course would it have had a great impact. And the atomic bomb would of couse first hit Germany if it wouldnt have surrendered (I told them we can do it but they were tired of fighting you know). Oppenheimer and Einstein are only a two of the many german scientists that contributed to the developement of the Manhattan project. But they were working in the US and the US would have had finished that thing first (even though in 1939 they were far behind)!

Shall we like Oppenheimer because he supported the right side or hate him because he deliberately developed what he knew would be the most terrible weapon ever?  

But to throw the nuke was of course a silly act of Truman and Groves. Everyone knows that Stalin would have soon declared war on kingdom Japan and without the support of Germany they would have surrendered immediately. The atomic bomb was used purely for the reason to show the USSR the power of the US, nothing more nothing less. So dont again give me this hollywood interpretations of "the right step"!  

Did you know that the tempreature was 10°mio degree Celsius and therefore everything (even stone) melted to real pie. But you could still see the humans cause their shadows burned black into the soil and walls.

[VXR 9]

i dont think the US would have trown a bom on germany it would have destroyed europe with the nuclear clouds that go everywhere like Tsjernobyl

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ Aug. 06 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont think the US would have trown a bom on germany it would have destroyed europe with the nuclear clouds that go everywhere like Tsjernobyl<span id='postcolor'>

Actually you are not so wrong about that, Germany in those years was an important country because it produced most iron and coal (Ruhrgebiet) and therefore was essential for the european economy. And a strong europe was important to build a border against Stalin. This is one of the reasons why the US was so eager to rebuild the german industrial infrastructure.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 06 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shall we like Oppenheimer because he supported the right side or hate him because he deliberately developed what he knew would be the most terrible weapon ever? <span id='postcolor'>

Like, you shall like him. Just developing a weapon does not make you an evil person, it's how and if you use it (unless you are developing a weapon and you already know it will be used to kill civilians).

For instance, working on anti personnel mines is nothing but murder.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 06 2002,10:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ Aug. 06 2002,161)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont think the US would have trown a bom on germany it would have destroyed europe with the nuclear clouds that go everywhere like Tsjernobyl<span id='postcolor'>

Actually you are not so wrong about that, Germany in those years was an important country because it produced most iron and coal (Ruhrgebiet) and therefore was essential for the european economy. And a strong europe was important to build a border against Stalin. This is one of the reasons why the US was so eager to rebuild the german industrial infrastructure.<span id='postcolor'>

Poland was also producing large numbers of those, but it would have caused suffering there as well.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 06 2002,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 06 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shall we like Oppenheimer because he supported the right side or hate him because he deliberately developed what he knew would be the most terrible weapon ever?  <span id='postcolor'>

Like, you shall like him.   Just developing a weapon does not make you an evil person, it's how and if you use it (unless you are developing a weapon and you already know it will be used to kill civilians).

For instance, working on anti personnel mines is nothing but murder.<span id='postcolor'>

Wepons of mass destruction are used against military, civilians, birds, boats, buildings, tree houses etc.. hence the name 'mass destruction'. Usually the civilians are in a majority.

The tale of modern strategy to knock out the other sides nukes with nukes is a childrens tale. During WW2 this wasn't even an issue; when you bombed, you bombed cities with everything that was in them. I believe that both Oppenheimer and Einstiein are morally acountable for their contribution. Einstein tried to wash his hands from the whole thing, but he was the one that wrote to Roosevelt and suggested the production of the atomic bomb. They were both perfectly aware how this thing would be used.

[bn880 5]

Well, someone was going to eventually make the bomb, why not when it was needed to protect innocent people. (even Americans were pretty innocent back then)

I think Einstein was fascinated in trying to achieve a nuclear fusion reaction more than he wanted to build the bomb. If you are watching Germany start to take over with their technology, wouldn't you try and help the Yanks build something better anyway?

this whole issue causes me some grief

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 06 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Hiroshima still is a gravejard!

I must admit I prefer lots of small little wars then the threat of a devastating one. We are humans, we need conlficts to stabilise ourselves. But cold-war was anything else than a perfect solution even if it went out well.

The risk of extremely high. Just because you jumped out of the window from 4th floor doesnt mean that this was the best and fastest solution.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if you ask other Asians about Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, they would say JPN deserved it. I find it hilarious that while Denoir has time to criticize use of A-bomb, he can't see millions other who approved it.

the idea of putting Hiroshima as a victim of atrocity is just sickening considering what they(JPN) were doing to rest of ppl. most of the ppl who survived got medical support, but even within exposed victims, mostly JPNese were given adequate care. most Chinese and Korean workers who were forced to work at Hiroshima(and it's industrial complex) had little medical care.

during its occupation of Manchuria, JPN conducted biological weapon reaserach on prisoners and civilians. one of the experiments that I know goes like this. place ppl on poles, each with varying distance from a center. at the center is place where you place a bomb(any kind). they will detonate it, and see what kind of effects bomb produces. all those ppl who were used were alive. if the person survived explosion, then they would examine wound and see either how long it would take them to die, or kill them and see how wounds were inflicted.

and the biological weapon test was also done on prisoners and civilians. they were injected or exposed to biological agents in a confined room, and were left there to die. and yes, researchers were given great opportunity to see how their works were effective.

after JPN military research unit left after war(i think their desiganted number was 571) Manchuria had to suffer from unusual cholera epidemic.

and need I mention Rape of Nanking? I've seen some pictures of JPN officers claming to show off their Bushido by getting into contest of how much they can cut ppl's head.

one thing that pisses me off is that US exchanged immunity of these animals with getting the record from them.

and even JPN did not free itself from attacking civilians. although their attempt was dumb(baloon and a bomb) it was aimed indiscrimately towards US civilians. it is unfortunate that two cities were nuked, but as many war veterans here say, shits happen. think of all the ppl who would have lost their lives if the A-bombs were not used, and JPN decided to keep up the war.

just a few years ago, Korean ppl protesting JPN's attempt to brand image of a victim during WW2 was met with rightwing JPN protesters who assualted Korean protesters and JPN police did little. not only that, but in a famous shinto temple where they place tags of war casualties, they placed Korean and Chinese too, but when these ppl asked to see them, were refused to enter. then they asked for return of the tags and were also refused.

every yr, that shinto temple is focus of Asian countries since many JPN politicians go there to pay their respect, despite all the atrocities done by them. did JPN apologize for its act? no. they mentioned that it is 'regrettable' which usually means nothing.

I'm pretty sure I don't need to mention Bridge over River Qwai to our UK ppl.

again, it's unfortunate that A-bombs had to be used, but it was lesser of two evils...

[Warin 0]

Wow. I hate when sleep means I miss a great thread like this.

To me the dropping of the A Bomb over Hiroshima is not nearly as morally repugnant as what happened three days later. The bomb on Nagasaki was both unneeded and unwaranted

Sadly, Japanese civilians had to pay for Trumans desire to demonstrate the power of the US to the rest of the world, including their nominal allies, the Soviet Union.

I would prefer to live in a world without the threat of atomic weapons. But like any scientific discovery with possible military applications, the first use will be a weapon I am not as certain as Denoir that Hiroshima was an evil act. The bombing did forestall an amphibious invasion of the Japanese islands that likely would have caused far more casualties on both sides. However, the bombin of Nagasaki was as evil and unwarranted as it comes. I hope that if there is a hell, Truman is burning in it for Nagasaki.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Of course it was a very painful and coldhearted decision to throw the bomb over civilians. but we will never know what would had happend if the US didnt.

It might had been like Russian rollete, the US didnt wanted to take the chance... i wouldnt do it either personally, would you? They took the safe side, and we cant really blaim them.

What surprices me is, that the US dont want to destroy their nuclear warheads today, while other countries such as Russia would. Now whose being trhe agressor?

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, Hirohito(then Emperor) didn't even budge when Hiroshima was bombed. it took another bombing to make him surrender...

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 06 2002,17:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, Hirohito(then Emperor) didn't even budge when Hiroshima was bombed. it took another bombing to make him surrender... <span id='postcolor'>

Hirohito was a pretty much a figure head. The Generals were the ones in charge. And giving someone less than 72 hours to surrender is a little on the naive side. Given the japanese mentality, it's not hard to imagine it taking more than three days for them to realize the magnitude of Hiroshima. Boming Nagasaki was not only gatituous at that point...but more an object lesson for the rest of the world than to force Japan to surrender. And that is why it is such a heinous act.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 06 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you ask other Asians about Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, they would say JPN deserved it. I find it hilarious that while Denoir has time to criticize use of A-bomb, he can't see millions other who approved it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and millions of Germans approved the Holocaust. That doesn't make it right, now does it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the idea of putting Hiroshima as a victim of atrocity is just sickening considering what they(JPN) were doing to rest of ppl. most of the ppl who survived got medical support, but even within exposed victims, mostly JPNese were given adequate care. most Chinese and Korean workers who were forced to work at Hiroshima(and it's industrial complex) had little medical care.

<snip>

<span id='postcolor'>

So it is a tooth for a tooth that you advocate? Because they did some monstrous things, does that mean that it is ok for us to do that to them too? Even if you think so, there is one little flaw in your logic. Those civilians that were nuked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the atrocities that the Japanese military comitted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

again, it's unfortunate that A-bombs had to be used, but it was lesser of two evils...<span id='postcolor'>

What was that other evil? Japan was cornerd. The Americans were pushing forwards. Soviet had just declared war. They were screwed anyhow.

I can't begin to say how indescribably furious I am over the comments I hear here. Such blant insensitivity and lack of respect for those who suffered. It is beyond my belief that there are people who think that bombing two cities full of civilians is 'ok' because 'it had to be done'. And to top it all it comes from people that usually say 'my condolences to the family of that brave cat' when a cat gets run over by a car.

We are soon coming to 9/11/2002 and I am betting we will get a thread where everybody will share how horrible that was. I am normally tip-toeing around not to offend anybody in WTC discussions, but I can tell you this: I am through with that. I have no obligation to be sensitive towards people who think that mass-murder of civilians is ok as long as they are not Americans. Fuck that.

This thread was not meant to be a critique of Americas bombing, because I never thought that anybody sane could defend it. I wanted to remind us of a horrific event that I hope that we as humans have learned something of and learned not to repeat it. Truly, the result is sad and I am really sorry for you people who are trying to defend the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[billytran 0]

America dropped pamphlets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki announcing that they would drop a powerful bomb on them. So, the people did have a chance to get out.

Denoir, what might your solution to the war have been? The next step would have been a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would've hundreds of thousands of Allied lives and twice as many Japanese lives. Dropping the bomb was a terrible thing but it had to be done. It saved millions. It was not a war crime.

[KingBeast 0]

If you think very literally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism. Because they civilians were targeted to try and push a government/military into making a decision. Like how a terrorist might put a gun to someones head or shoot a couple of hostages to make people respond to his/her demands.

It might have cost more soldiers lives to go in and invade Japan, but thats what soldiers are there for. In a war 1000 soldiers dead is alright. No its not good, but its alright because that is the job they do .They expect to die. 1000 civilians dead in a war is not alright, because they are not expected to die.

(its not really all right, being used as an expendable pawn for a government is not really very good, but thats just me putting things simply.)

[billytran 0]

KingBeast,

Let me get this straight... it's okay for three or four millions of soldiers to die, but not for three hundred thousand civilians? The president did the right thing. Those soldiers had families who were depending on Truman to bring them home. Why don't you blame the Japanese emperor, who brought all of this on his people. Blame him for turning down the ultimatum, blame him for just sitting around after Hiroshima.

[timmy 0]

the JPNese commited far worse war crimes than we did, but that still doesnt make killing innocent civilians right. But if we didnt do that, cant you see that far worse outcomes to the war were inevitable. They could have attacked the US again, and if we attacked japan more soliders from both sides would die, and certianly civilians would be killed by accident if we made a full scale invasion.

I garuntee that the president and his staff looked over all their options before doing this. Truman had to look out for the good of the american people, and he obviously saw that this option would be the most effective in ending the war that would take millions more if it wasnt stoped then.

Plus if it wasnt used then, no one would know the power of it, and in the cold war we wouldnt have been as afraid of it. If it didnt happen in ww2, there was a good chance that a more powerfull nuclear weapon might have been used against a bigger city with more people, and that country would have retaliated starting a nuclear war.

[KingBeast 0]

You keep mentioning it was for the good of America and the American people, but how much loss did America suffer for the duration of the war? Its not like they were at breaking point.

We sit around speculating about how an invasion of Japan would cost millions of American servicemens lives, but how do any of us know what would have happened?

Japan, seeing how the tide of the war had turned so suddenly against them would probably have surrendered sooner rather than later.

Maybe we should nuked the whole of Iraq, because it might cost many servicemens lives if we have to actually invade hmm?

[timmy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Aug. 05 2002,22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because it might cost many servicemens lives if we have to actually invade hmm?<span id='postcolor'>

no it wont cost many servicemens lives, it will be quick and swift

[KingBeast 0]

lol well perhaps so, but im sure you understand what im trying to say.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Aug. 06 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep mentioning it was for the good of America and the American people, but how much loss did America suffer for the duration of the war? Its not like they were at breaking point.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you saying? That America should have suffered to make things easier on the enemy? That's not how war works.

Also, Japan had shown no signs of surrender and we gave them an ultimatum.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

"Your honour..this is not correct!" as I said before (about as noone reads my crap) Stalin was just a pinch away from declaring war on Japan. Also, Japan had just lost its allies from europe, its fleet was heavily destroyed, they were aware that america would now focus all its attention away from europe towards Japan. I can show you precise references that this is not simply my thesis but a common opinion: "truman used the atomic bomb as symbolic sign to Stalin". But Stalin of course wasnt amazed at all since his secret service informed him well about what the americans had developed there. So all in all not the quite a very successful advertising campaign. It would have been as if someone would have thrown an atomic bomb on italy after germany had surrendered.

[timmy 0]

yea, i dont really think that is the point of war. Your not suposed to look at like, "well we should at least make it fair, so we should loose some lives to."

i mean, its war, its not a matter of, well we havent lost that many lives yet, lets keep are troops on the ground, and when we loose a million or so more lives, then, and only then well drop the a-bomb, to make it fair

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 06 2002,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Aug. 06 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep mentioning it was for the good of America and the American people, but how much loss did America suffer for the duration of the war? Its not like they were at breaking point.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you saying?  That America should have suffered to make things easier on the enemy?  That's not how war works.<span id='postcolor'>

Civilians are not to be considered as valid targets. Or perhaps you consider them to be valid targets?

In that case by that logic you think that the WTC attacks were quite legitimate act of wars.